UNIVERSITY  OF 
ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 
AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 
AGRICULTURE 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 

University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign  Alternates 


https://archive.org/details/comparisonofshee9319ovia 


UNIVERSITY  OF  WYOMING 

Agricultural  College  Department. 


WyomiQg  Experirr)ent  StatioQ 

LARAMIE,  WYOMING. 


ETTIN  NO.  Q3 
JUNE,  1912 


A  Comparison  of  Sheep  Branding  Paints 

C.  J.  OVIATT,  Asst.  ^Vool  Investigations 


Bulletins  will  be  sent  free  upon  request.  Address :  Director 
Experiment  Station,  Laramie,  Wyo. 


Wyoming  Agricultural  Experiment  Station 


UNIVERSITY  OF  WYOMING 

LARAMIE. 


BOARD  OF  TRUSTEES. 


Officers. 


TIMOTHY  F.  BURKE,  LL.  B . President 

J.  F.  CRAWFORD . Vice  President 

ARTHUR  C.  JONES . Treasurer 

FRANK  SUMNER  BURRAGE.  B.  A . Secretary 


Executive  Committee. 

A.  B.  HAMILTON  T.  F.  BURKE  V.  J.  TIDBALL 


Members. 


Term 


Appointed  Expires 

1895 . HON.  TIMOTHY  F.  BURKE,  LL.  B . 1913 

1903 . HON.  A.  J.  MOKLER . 1913 

1907  . HON.  J.  F.  CRAWFORD . 1913 

1911 . HON.  WILLIAM  S.  INGHAM,  B.  A . 1913 

1908  . HON.  GIBSON  CLARK . 1915 

1909  . HON.  V.  JEAN  TIDBALL,  B.  A..  LL.  B . 1915 

1911 . HON.  ALEXANDER  B.  HAMILTON,  M.  D . 1917 

1911 . HON.  LYMAN  H.  BROOKS . 1917 

1911 . HON.  AUGUSTINE  KENDALL . 1917 

HON..  ROSE  A.  BIRD,  State  Superintendent  of  Public 

Instruction  . Ex  officio 

PRES.  CHARLES  O.  MERICA,  LL.  D . Ex  officio 


STATION  COUNCIL. 

CHARLES  O.  MERICA,  A.  M.,  LL.  D . President 

HENRY  G.  KNIGHT,  A.  M . Director  and  Chemist 

A.  NELSON,  Ph.  D . Botanist  and  Horticulturist 

F.  E.  HEPNER,  M.  S . Assistant  Chemist 

J.  A.  HILL,  B.  S . Wool  Specialist 

O.  L.  PRIEN,  M.  D.  V . Veterinarian 

A.  D.  FAVILLE,  B.  S . Animal  Husbandman 

J.  C.  FITTERER,  M.  S.,  C.  E . Irrigation  Engineer 

S.  K.  LOY,  Ph.  D . Research  Chemist 

T.  S.  PARSONS,  M.  S . Agronomist 

L.  D.  SWINGLE,  Ph.  D . Parasitologist 

KARL  STEIK,  M.  A . Engineering  Chemist 

C.  J.  OVIATT,  B.  S . Assistant  Wool  Investigations 

JAMES  McLAY . Stock  Superintendent 

H.  A.  McCRAKEN . Clerk 

F.  S.  BURRAGE,  B.  A . Secretary 


Sheep  Branding  Paints. 

INTRODUCTION. 

A  continual  demand  for  reliable  information  concerning 
sheep  branding  fluids  called  for  an  investigation,  the  results 
of  which  follow.  Range  conditions  in  this  state  are  exceed¬ 
ingly  severe  upon  paint  brands,  and  experience  teaches  that 
but  few  will  last  the  season. 

A  perfect  branding  fluid  will  have  two  main  character¬ 
istics,  as  follows :  First,  the  brand  will  be  permanent  enough 
to  withstand  range  conditions  for  one  year  and  show  with 
reasonable  plainness  at  the  end  of  that  time.  Second,  its  com¬ 
position  will  be  such  that  it  can  be  completely  removed  by 
ordinary  scouring  solutions.  These  conditions  are  hard  to 
obtain,  but  this  is  the  problem  of  the  manufacturer.  Under 
range  conditions  a  permanent  brand  is  an  absolute  necessity, 
not  only  in  determining  the  ownership  of  stray  animals,  but 
also  in  the  customary  breeding  operations.  An  indistinct  brand 
ofttimes  means  much  trouble  and  loss.  It  is  also  imperative 
that  the  brand  be  of  such  material  that  it  will  scour  readily. 
Every  drop  of  paint  placed  upon  wool  must  be  removed  before 
the  wool  can  be  manufactured  into  cloth.  If  the  brand  will 
not  scour  out  by  the  usual  methods,  then  hand  labor  must  be 
employed  to  go  over  every  fleece  and  clip  off  the  brands. 
This  not  only  means  the  loss  of  the  wool  clipped  off,  but  it 
means  a  considerable  amount  of  money  expended  for  labor, 
all  of  which  eventually  comes  out  of  the  pockets  of  the  wool 
grower. 

In  some  localities  a  brand  placed  upon  the  ear,  nose  or 
forehead  where  it  would  not  injure  the  wool  would  be  suf¬ 
ficient.  In  fact,  in  many  cases  the  entire  absence  of  a  brand 
would  serve  as  the  best  identification  mark.  It  is  the  duty 
of  the  wool  grower  to  use  as  little  paint  as  possible,  placed 
where  it  will  be  the  least  injurious  to  the  fleece.  When  the 
sheepmen  appreciate  the  decreased  price  of  wool  due  to  ex¬ 
travagant  use  of  paint  they  will  exercise  more  care  in  the 
,  selection  and  application  of  their  brands. 


4  Wyoming  Experiment  Station. 

ATTITUDE  OF  MANUFACTURER. 

In  the  big  woolen  mills  the  manufacturer  of  cloth  takes 
no  chances  with  paint  brands.  The  fleeces  are  worked  over 
by  hand  labor  and  the  brands  clipped  off.  Brands  that  will 
scour  and  brands  that  will  not  are  treated  alike.  This  is  an 
exceedingly  costly  operation  and  is  necessitated  only  by  the 
too  liberal  use  of  undesirable  paints.  If  all  wool  grower^ 
would  use  a  scourable  paint  the  labor  would  be  eliminated 
and  the  saving  could  be  added  to  the  price  of  wool. 

In  order  to  ascertain  the  comparative  efficiency,  durability 
and  scouring  out  qualities  of  different  paints  on  the  market, 
the  following  tests  were  made : 


PLATE  I. 

This  cut  shows  the  system  of  marking  employed  so  that  all  brands 
would  be  subjected  to  similar  treatment.  Note  that,  for  instance,  Paint 
No.  4  appears  on  right  side  of  one  sheep  and  on  right  shoulder  of  next. 
This  picture  was  taken  immediately  after  branding.  The  sheep  were 
dipped  July  20th,  and  were  branded  five  days  later. 

OUTLINE  OF  EXPERIMENTS. 

Six  different  paints  were  used,  the  names  or  descriptions 
and  numbers  of  which  follow : 

1.  Common  Paint,  i.  e.,  Venetian  red,  linseed  oil  and 
turpentine. 

2.  Kemp’s  Australian  Sheep  Branding  Fluid. 


5 


A  Comparison  of  Sheep  Branding  Paints. 

3.  Sheep  Branding  Fluid,  Oregon  Wood  Distilling 
Company. 

4.  Perfect  Sheep  Branding  Fluid,  Stockman’s  Supply 
House,  Chicago. 

5.  Special  Sheep  Branding  Fluid,  Devoe  &  Raynolds  Co. 

6.  Harmless  Sheep  Marking  Fluid,  Sherwin-Williams 

Company. 

In  all  twelve  sheep  were  used,  of  which  six  were  branded 
before  dipping  and  six  after  dipping.  In  the  first  lot  were 
two  Rambouillets,  two  Cotswolds  and  two  Shropshires.  The 
second  lot,  those  branded  after  dipping,  was  made  up  entirely 
of  Rambouillets.  The  brand,  which  was  a  capital  letter  O 
with  the  number  of  the  paint  directly  underneath,  was  applied 
with  the  common  branding  iron.  Each  sheep  in  each  lot  was 
branded  with  six  different  brands  in  such  a  manner  that,  for 
instance.  Paint  No.  i  appeared  on  the  right  shoulder  of  one 
sheep,  on  the  right  side  of  the  next,  on  the  right  hip  of  the 
next  and  so  on  through  the  lot.  By  this  method,  in  each  lot, 
all  the  paints  appeared  on  each  sheep  but  in  a  different  posi¬ 
tion  on  each  sheep.  Plate  I  helps  illustrate  the  method.  In 
this  way  the  brands  were  subjected  to  the  same  treatment  and 
a  comparative  test  could  be  made. 


PLATE  II. 

The  aboV^  cut  shows  brand  on  sheep  branded  before  dipping.  This 
brand  had  bet*i  on  only  four  months.  Plate  III  shows  the  same  view  of 
this  sheep  a  lirdc  less  than  two  months  later. 


6 


Wyoming  Experiment  Station. 


In  branding  the  iron  was  placed  upon  a  pad  of  wool  satu¬ 
rated  with  the  fluid  and  then  applied  to  the  sheep.  Common 
paint,  Kemp’s,  Perfect,  Special,  and  Harmless  were  very  easy 
to  apply,  being  just  thick  enough  to  avoid  dripping.  The 
fluid  from  the  Oregon  Wood  Distilling  Company  was  rather 
thin  and  hence  hard  to  apply  so  as  to  give  a  perfect  brand. 
The  pigment  and  base  in  the  Special  had  precipitated,  and  this 
necessitated  considerable  stirring  before  the  liquid  was  ready 
for  use. 

The  sheep  were  allowed  range  conditions  as  nearly  as 
possible  and  notes  were  taken  at  regular  intervals.  As  is  usu¬ 
ally  the  case,  the  brands  faded  rapidly  on  the  coarse  and  long- 
wools,  remaining  visible  as  a  brand  only  five  months.  On 
the  medium  wooled  sheep  the  brands  were  more  durable,  while 
they  reached  their  maximum  on  the  fine  wools.  However, 
none  of  the  prepared  paints  remained  for  a  full  year.  Some 
were  indistinct  in  five  months  while  some  persisted  during 
eight  months.  The  Common  paint,  however,  remained  for 
the  full  year  on  the  downs  and  fine  wools.  Similar  tests  show 
that  lamp  black,  a  little  white  lead  and  linseed  oil  make  as 
durable  a  paint  as  the  one  tested  here  and  known  as  Common. 


PLATE  III. 

Same  sheep  and  view  as  in  Plate  II  about  two  months  later.  Brand 
has  been  on  nearly  six  months  and  is  fading  rapidly. 


A  Comparison  of  Sheep  Branding  Paints. 


/ 


Careful  examination  at  regular  intervals  and  at  close  of 
test  show  these  paints  to  have  durability  ranking  as  in  the 
following  table : 


On  On  On 

PAINT  Coarse  Medium  Fine 

1  Wools  Wools  Wools 


Common  . 

Devoe  &  Raynolds  “Special” . 

Oregon  Wood  Distilling  Company’s.. 

Kemp’s  Australian  . ■  — 

Sherwin-Williams’  “Harmless”  . 

Stockman’s  Supply  House  “Perfect  ’ 


Mos. 

/ 

() 

5 

5 

4 

4 


Mos 

12 

8 

8 

7 

(j 

fi 


Mos 

12 

8 

8 

/ 

(i 


SCOURING  TESTS. 

A  scouring  solution  of  olive  soap,  water  and  soda  ash 
at  an  average  temperature  of  130°  F.  was  used  in  this  test. 
The  brands,  clipped  from  the  fleeces,  were  subjected  to  this 
treatment  for  twenty  minutes  and  then  cleaned  in  hot  water. 
It  was  found  that  the  fineness  of  wool  had  little  or  no  effect  on 
the  scouring  out  qualities  of  the  paints. 


PLATE  IV. 

Picture  taken  immediately  after  branding.  Note  how  plainly  brand 
shows  in  detail  on  fine  wool  sheep.  Compare  with  Plate  V. 


Kemp’s  scoured  out  perfectly,  leaving  no  trace  of  paint 
upon  the  scoured  wool.  The  fluid  from  the  Oregon  Wood 
Distilling  Company  did  not  scour  so  well  and  small  quantities 
of  paint  would  cling  to  the  scoured  wool.  The  Perfect  was 


8 


Wyoming  Experiment  Station. 


next  in  rank,  but  scoured  with  considerable  difficulty.  This 
treatment  had  but  little  ef¥ect  upon  the  remainder  of  the  paints. 


Conunon  . 

Scouring  Tests 

Does  not  scour 
Does  not  scour 
Pair 

Scoured  perfectly 
Does  not  scour 
Fair 

Devoe  &  Raynold’s  “Special” . 

Oregon  Wood  Distilling  Company’s . 

Kemp’s  Australian  . 

Sherwin-Williams’  “Harmless”  . 

Stockman’s  Supply  House  “Perfect” . 

PLATE  V. 

Picture  taken  immediately  after  branding.  Note  absence  of  sharp¬ 
ness  in  detail.  Brand  is  less  effective  and  less  desirable  on  this  wool. 


CONCLUSIONS. 

A  paint  made  of  Venetian  red  or  lamp  black  as  pigments 
mixed  with  linseed  oil  is  much  more  durable  than  the  prepared 
paints  tested.  The  right  consistency  may  be  obtained  by  the 
addition  of  turpentine. 

Brands  remain  a  greater  length  of  time  on  downs  and 
fine-wools  than  on  coarse  wools. 

The  fineness  of  the  wool  has  no  effect  upon  the  scouring 
out  qualities  of  the  paints. 

Kemp’s  was  the  only  paint  to  scour  perfectly.  The  fluid 
from  the  Oregon  Wood  Distilling  Company  scoured  fairly  well 
but  it  was  impossible  to  secure  a  complete  removal  by  ordinary 
methods. 


<^'•-‘.1;  'a, 


'’T* 


pr 


!<>! 


J>  fcf.  -j 


s-v-  .  •'sajg^  ^  : 

^  JF  r.-jw’-  '"  :.i::.i'iitlig-  •  •■ -i ^-^iv -  grmrx-:  yj  ;,t';jt 

-jsfe.'.  'i-rJiSBJS^...gKf  ■■  ^■-  j..)r^  .  ■  ■;  ,.■■■;•  ■> 


§*■  -V. 


.^'1' 


i?' 


V-r*i 


y  V 

:i' 


"a  •  "L  •'■;•'  ■  .■  *■ , 

V  i.4  f*  y 

'  rilr'  » .. .*t-;.''.'  '*’-  a-  ■  •  'y 


lfv^  ^  ?  i. 


,.-  - 

‘t.*.  *’  ” 

A  X.'  ^  •■ 


,  _  .(  ,  N‘V’  * 

’X’^  ■  *  *’t^  ••  r  '.  ly^  '"V  », .' * ‘4 

■  •  iai.^:'. '^v. ,  ■  •  r'  I'r^v.v'  V 

■  -  raBlf- •,  s'ji-  *  '  ‘^■'^ 


j.  Kfjf  • 


.  * 


^r. 


V  My  , 

bir,<.  '  ‘■-  ■  %-J,^ 

m  **|W  ’  »  .  H  4.  ^ 


r  '• 


iV'  « 


.r'. 

M 


■f^ 


w  -V.  4. 

V>*%.  i_.  '  „  ,«  ; 

'  -  ’  •  M  'Vs 


'•./*|.:C^ 

■  4.  ^3.  cSmW  ’'  . 


If' 


’  ..  • _  .  \  *  ..^  p  »  .%  «.  k  V  *>  ■ 


'  i'V 


•_  ^  4  ”  »  .'T  «.  k  %  - _ 


